## Facts

- Employees of the London Electricity Board excavated a trench on a public pavement.
- Lacking materials to properly cordon off the site, the workers placed an upright shovel as a makeshift visual warning near the trench.
- Mr. Haley, a blind pedestrian, was walking unassisted along the pavement and did not detect the warning.
- Mr. Haley fell into the unguarded trench and sustained serious injuries.
- The Board argued that their warning was adequate for sighted individuals and claimed it was not foreseeable that a blind person would be unaccompanied on that pavement.
- The incident prompted a legal challenge regarding the extent of the duty of care owed to disabled persons in public spaces.

## Issues

1. Whether the London Electricity Board’s duty of care in negligence extended to disabled individuals, specifically blind pedestrians using public pavements unassisted.
2. Whether the Board could be held liable for breaching this duty by failing to provide warnings accessible to blind individuals.
3. Whether the risk of injury to blind pedestrians was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Board's actions.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the duty of care extended to all members of the public, including disabled individuals such as blind pedestrians.
- The foreseeability of blind or visually impaired people using public sidewalks was affirmed as part of the standard of reasonable care.
- Providing only a visual warning—an upright shovel—was deemed insufficient, constituting a breach of duty.
- The Board was found liable for Mr. Haley’s injuries because it failed to consider the risk to disabled individuals who might reasonably be expected to use the pavement.

## Legal Principles

- The standard of care in negligence applies to all foreseeable users of public spaces, including those with disabilities.
- Reasonable care requires defendants to anticipate and provide for the needs of people with disabilities, rather than serving only the "average" person.
- Foreseeability must include the presence and requirements of disabled individuals within the general public.
- A failure to implement accessible precautions where the risk to disabled persons is foreseeable constitutes a breach of duty under negligence law.

## Conclusion

Haley v London Electricity Board established that defendants owe a duty of care to all members of the public, including disabled individuals, and must foresee and accommodate their presence in public spaces. The case is a leading authority clarifying that reasonable precautions must address foreseeable risks to individuals with disabilities, shaping subsequent negligence jurisprudence towards greater inclusivity and equity.


Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778